Legal Opinion · Dissent

Champlin Oil & Refining Company v. Chastain

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 1966No. A-10293Published

1DissentPope, Justice

I respectfully dissent. The majority has correctly held that Champlin proved no basis to reform its contract with Chastain. The Court has incorrectly held that Chas-tain is equitably estopped from recovery on the contract. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals. Champlin, in my opinion, is ineligible to invoke the aid of a court of conscience to defeat its contractual liability. It breached the contract it drafted, discovered almost three years before Chastain that it was breaching it, was under a duty to make full and fair disclosure of its discovery but did not do so, and…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Gulbenkian v. PennTexas Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Russell v. Industrial Transportation Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1924
  3. Buchanan v. Burnett and WifeTexas Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Labbe v. CorbettTexas Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Consolidated Fruit-Jar Co. v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1877

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API